2005 Draft Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

DARKSIDE

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
1,053
0
It sounds like you actually fear having a season to determine draft positioning and I can't understand why that is. Please elaborate.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
DARKSIDE said:
It sounds like you actually fear having a season to determine draft positioning and I can't understand why that is. Please elaborate.


I think that was to me . . . fear? Not at all. I merely said that the article never implied that the draft itself was cancelled, merely that in effect a bunch of hotel reservations were cancelled. If the hockey Gods deem it advisable to let next year's standings (assuming there is a next year) cover two drafts that would be fine. But the article never says anything of the sort, in fact most of league reps speakings on the subject have said the opposite, that there would be a draft either in June or soon after a new CBA is signed. And by the way, as long as we are on the subject of combining two drafts based on next year's standings, and since you brought it up, I will point out that would be a violation of the 'rule' everyone who wants anything but the past year or years standings to control draft position, isn't it? It merely goes in the other direction. Tank next year and you get a 50/50 chance at Crosby and the first pick of next year's draft. Sucks however you slice it, doesn't it? I would guess that this is one reason why most pronouncements on the subject have said that the draft in fact would be based on past standings and be weighted in some way. If you have to choose an imperfect system, may as well choose one that somewhat has logic rather than totally pulling one out of your rear, true?
 

DARKSIDE

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
1,053
0
Jaded-Fan said:
I think that was to me . . . fear? Not at all. I merely said that the article never implied that the draft itself was cancelled, merely that in effect a bunch of hotel reservations were cancelled. If the hockey Gods deem it advisable to let next year's standings (assuming there is a next year) cover two drafts that would be fine. But the article never says anything of the sort, in fact most of league reps speakings on the subject have said the opposite, that there would be a draft either in June or soon after a new CBA is signed. And by the way, as long as we are on the subject of combining two drafts based on next year's standings, and since you brought it up, I will point out that would be a violation of the 'rule' everyone who wants anything but the past year or years standings to control draft position, isn't it? It merely goes in the other direction. Tank next year and you get a 50/50 chance at Crosby and the first pick of next year's draft. Sucks however you slice it, doesn't it? I would guess that this is one reason why most pronouncements on the subject have said that the draft in fact would be based on past standings and be weighted in some way. If you have to choose an imperfect system, may as well choose one that somewhat has logic rather than totally pulling one out of your rear, true?

Rules? With the new CBA there will be plenty of new rules from salary caps to 2 line passes. They can change whatever they feel like changing. Although, the owners do want a draft, if this lock-out goes on until January and you can bet that there will be a combined draft and they will either use next season standings by replacement players or an abbreviated season by NHL players.
 

hawksfan50

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
13,984
1,965
1. We had the staement from Bill Daly that the draft would be a weighted system based on the 2003/2004 season finishes--but we did not get any direction as to whether it would be an all 30 team chance to move up to #1 --or a tiered system where you could only move up to #1 in your tier...

2. Now however--the Ottawa Citizen yesterday published a big article speculating that the weighting would be based on the finishes of several seasons --not just the last one played in '03/'04--AND that the most support seemed to be for a 4 season time frame from which to base the weightings....However the article also IMPLIED that the usual maximum move up of 5 positions could still be used --which would limit the chance for Crosby to just 5 teams....based on the finishes of the last 4 seasons that were played this would put CHICAGO at ONLY #6 --meaning thatif they won the lotto they could only move up to #2....the only teams with a chance for Crosby based on this would be Columbus,Pittsburgh,Atlanta,Florida and --you guessed it--the NEW YORK RANGERS---the fix to get NYR in looks like a Bettman imperative...it stinks!
Although I do not like rewarding one of the major causees of the current NHL mess (the "big spender Rangers) --I can live with them in such a "limited" chance for (Crosby) group---howeve --in the intersts of fairness---we must ask: how many 1st or 2nd overalls did Columbus,Pittsburgh.Atlanta,and Florida accumulate in the past 4 drafts---Chicago had ZERO in this category....secondarily,how many draftpicks from #3through #5 overall did those 4 teams accumulate in the period --Chicago had only 1 (Barker at #3 in the last draft)...therefore it seems to me that Chicago--AGAIN--is getting shafted if this system prevails---UNLESS they were to
ALSO weight this "limited 5" by weighting each of the 4 seasons differently--ie. the last season played should carry more weight --since the most recent gives the most recent evaluation of a team's competitive strength or weakness--thus if the 2003/04 finishes were weighted say at 40%,2002/03 finishes at 30%,2001/02 at 20% and the remote 2000/01 season finishes at just 10% of the overall 4 year assessment,we should get a fairer system..no doubt the woeful Blackhawks would get bumped back up into the "fab 5" ...OR --I could live with the Hawks weighting at just 6th best chance,IF the usual "cannot move up more than 5 spots" is removed and all 30 teams based on their 4 season weighting of chances were allowed to move up all the way to #1 if they won the lotto...so that even Detroit
--having the 30th worst lotto chance % by this 4 yr weighting (ie. the smallest % chance to win) would still have a miniscule shot at Crosby...I do not like that--but I prefer that to the Blackhawks being shut out of a 5 only shot at Crosby...I still say they should only consider the 2003/04 season--but allow a 3 tier lotto where any of 10 teams in the tier can move up to #1 in their tier if they win their lotto...
Each team in the tier would be weighted % -wise as determined by their 2003/04 system--if the NHL still wants a 4 year time frame to weight it--then OK --weight each tier according to the 4 year results--IN ANY CASE---the draft must not be limited to only 5 teams with a shot at getting Crosby...no manipulation to get NYR
their "fixed" chance,I say!
 
Last edited:

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
I like the idea of using standings from the last 4 seasons, only because it's basically an era in and of itself (the only four regular seasons when the NHL was at 30 teams, which makes sense to me). Now, I'm not saying the NHL WON'T be at 30 when we start up again, but I think everyone would agree that it will be the dawn of a new era.

What I don't like is the lottery being limited to 5 teams with regards to the top pick. I have a problem with this, and not only because of the above post using the Chicago example. With everything that will have gone down from the moment the Lightning won the Stanley Cup, to the moment the NHL will open up again (with the regulars, not the replacements), TOO MUCH will have changed to be able to officially proclaim ANY five clubs as the five worst (or five most deserving of a No. 1 pick, etc). I just don't see how it can be deemed fair if limited to only 5 teams. Weigh it, but open it up for all 30 teams (first round only, second round and beyond is less of an issue IMHO), because that's the only thing that makes logical sense.
 

DARKSIDE

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
1,053
0
Found this idea on ESPN...

"Given the NHL lockout is about bridging the gap between the rich and the poor, it would be apropos to use a weighted lottery based on reported financial losses, not on ice wins and losses. The teams would be placed in order of financial distress, with the 14 teams in the most dire straights having the best shot at the No. 1 pick. Bet the NHLPA would love to see owners make their cases." Now, wouldn't that be an interesting concept! :clap:
 

WhitePony

Registered User
Mar 29, 2003
1,072
0
Visit site
DARKSIDE said:
Found this idea on ESPN...

"Given the NHL lockout is about bridging the gap between the rich and the poor, it would be apropos to use a weighted lottery based on reported financial losses, not on ice wins and losses. The teams would be placed in order of financial distress, with the 14 teams in the most dire straights having the best shot at the No. 1 pick. Bet the NHLPA would love to see owners make their cases." Now, wouldn't that be an interesting concept! :clap:



Not really....since if the poorest team got Crosby, they would potentially not be able to afford him in a few years anyway.
 

Grave77digger

Registered User
Feb 27, 2004
2,590
7
profiles.sports.yahoo.com
DARKSIDE said:
Found this idea on ESPN...

"Given the NHL lockout is about bridging the gap between the rich and the poor, it would be apropos to use a weighted lottery based on reported financial losses, not on ice wins and losses. The teams would be placed in order of financial distress, with the 14 teams in the most dire straights having the best shot at the No. 1 pick. Bet the NHLPA would love to see owners make their cases." Now, wouldn't that be an interesting concept! :clap:

:dunce:
 

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
Re: Crosby

Since we are starting to see how the 2005 Draft is going to work, I thought it'd be fun to look at where people would LOVE to see Sidney Crosby wind up, where they wouldn't mind seeing him wind up and where they'd absolutely HATE seeing Sid wind up. Of course, I am assuming that all 30 teams will have a crack at No. 87. Everybody has different reasons for wanting Crosby to play on a certain team. Here are my personal preferences (in alphabetical order):

Would I LOVE, Like or HATE to see Sidney Crosby drafted by this franchise...?

Anaheim - Like
Atlanta - LOVE
Boston - HATE
Buffalo - Like
Calgary - Like
Carolina - Like
Chicago - LOVE
Colorado - Like
Columbus - Like
Dallas - HATE
Detroit - HATE
Edmonton - LOVE
Florida - Like
Los Angeles - LOVE
Minnesota - HATE
Montreal - LOVE
Nashville - LOVE
New Jersey - HATE
NY Islanders - Like
NY Rangers - LOVE
Ottawa - HATE
Philadelphia - HATE
Phoenix - Like
Pittsburgh - LOVE
St. Louis - Like
San Jose - Like
Tampa Bay - Like
Toronto - HATE
Vancouver - Like
Washington - HATE


What's your preference?
 

BackToTheBrierePatch

Nope not today.
Feb 19, 2003
65,865
24,271
Concord, New Hampshire
Jag68Vlady27 said:
Since we are starting to see how the 2005 Draft is going to work, I thought it'd be fun to look at where people would LOVE to see Sidney Crosby wind up, where they wouldn't mind seeing him wind up and where they'd absolutely HATE seeing Sid wind up. Of course, I am assuming that all 30 teams will have a crack at No. 87. Everybody has different reasons for wanting Crosby to play on a certain team. Here are my personal preferences (in alphabetical order):

Would I LOVE, Like or HATE to see Sidney Crosby drafted by this franchise...?

Anaheim - Like
Atlanta - LOVE
Boston - HATE
Buffalo - Like
Calgary - Like
Carolina - Like
Chicago - LOVE
Colorado - Like
Columbus - Like
Dallas - HATE
Detroit - HATE
Edmonton - LOVE
Florida - Like
Los Angeles - LOVE
Minnesota - HATE
Montreal - LOVE
Nashville - LOVE
New Jersey - HATE
NY Islanders - Like
NY Rangers - LOVE
Ottawa - HATE
Philadelphia - HATE
Phoenix - Like
Pittsburgh - LOVE
St. Louis - Like
San Jose - Like
Tampa Bay - Like
Toronto - HATE
Vancouver - Like
Washington - HATE


What's your preference?

Would I LOVE, Like or HATE to see Sidney Crosby drafted by this franchise...?

Anaheim - no prob
Atlanta - no prob
Boston - NO
Buffalo - NO
Calgary - no prob
Carolina - NO
Chicago - NP, allthou Wirtz would deal him in 3 seasons
Colorado - NO
Columbus - no prob.
Dallas - NO
Detroit - NEVER,not in a million years
Edmonton - no prob
Florida - NO
Los Angeles - hell yeah
Minnesota - NO, Crosby in a defensive oriented system? um NO
Montreal - no prob. he probably wants to be there anyway
Nashville - LOVE
New Jersey - never, ever. why play in front of 11 fans in NJ?
NY Islanders - NEVER.
NY Rangers - Not enough words to describe how much i would hate this
Ottawa - see NY Rangers
Philadelphia - would be awesome, Carter,Richards,Crosby. that wouldnt be bad
Phoenix - no prob
Pittsburgh - no prob
St. Louis - no prob
San Jose - no prob
Tampa Bay - See NY Rangers
Toronto - NEVER, not in a million years.
Vancouver - no prob
Washington - no prob
 

DARKSIDE

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
1,053
0
Anaheim - NA
Atlanta - NA
Boston - Don't deserve him (Terrible Owner)
Buffalo - Don't Mind
Calgary - Don't Mind
Carolina - Don't Mind
Chicago - Don't deserve him (Terrible Owner)
Colorado - Hate (Beat us in cup final)
Columbus - NA
Dallas - NA
Detroit - NA
Edmonton - Hate (Cry Baby GM)
Florida - Hate (Don't like their GM)
Los Angeles - Don't Mind
Minnesota - Don't Mind
Montreal - Like (Kids Favorite Team)
Nashville - Don't Mind
New Jersey - LOVE! (My Favorite Team)
NY Islanders - Like ( Get to watch him play)
NY Rangers - Hate (Wouldn't mind so much, however, Dolan & Sather, enough said!)
Ottawa - Hate (Dynasty in the minds of Sen fans that never won a Cup)
Philadelphia - Hate (Crummy town)
Phoenix - Don't Mind
Pittsburgh - Don't deserve him
St. Louis - Don't Mind
San Jose - NA ((Up and coming)
Tampa Bay - NA (Cup Champs)
Toronto - Don't Mind
Vancouver - Hate (Their fans want Niedermayer)
Washington - Don't deserve him

:clap:
 
Last edited:

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
Anaheim - Like
Atlanta - Like
Boston - HATE
Buffalo - Like
Calgary - HATE
Carolina - Hate
Chicago - Hate
Colorado - Like
Columbus - Like
Dallas - HATE
Detroit - Like
Edmonton - HATE
Florida - HATE
Los Angeles - HATE
Minnesota - HATE
Montreal - Like
Nashville - HATE
New Jersey - HATE
NY Islanders - Like
NY Rangers - Like
Ottawa - HATE
Philadelphia - LOVE
Phoenix - Like
Pittsburgh - HATE
St. Louis - Like
San Jose - Like
Tampa Bay - HATE
Toronto - Like
Vancouver - Like
Washington - HATE
 

Jumptheshark

Rebooting myself
Oct 12, 2003
99,857
13,840
Somewhere on Uranus
Jaded-Fan said:
Finally, some definitive word on the draft:


No matter the result of that legal wrangling, a draft must be held before the next NHL season begins. The NHL's Bill Daly has said the order of the draft would be decided in a 30-team lottery weighted on the results of the 2003-04 season.

.
Actually because the draft rules are part of the CBA---

all the cba has to do is push the age limit to 19 and that would mean they would not HAVE to have a draft


I know for a fact that if the nhl tries to hold a draft based upon previous standings two teams will try to block the draft. The two teams have almost no players under contract and both teams have said that any draft that is held based upon a non season should be what they described as a 'texas scramble' type draft where all teams have the same chance have getting the first overall pick.

depending on what is in the CBA--some good teams could obliterated when the NHL does come back. Say if the UFA age is lowered to 29 and a hard salary cap is in place---some teams will have no players under contract(but willl still own the rights to some of their younger players).

Also--on July 1st a new group of players become UFA's--remember--even though there was no season played--all contracts get a year knocked off of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->